Posted
by
samzenpuson Sunday May 18, 2014 @05:07PM
from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

An anonymous reader writes "According to scientists we can look forward to more devastating wildfires like the ones scorching Southern California because of global warming. "The fires in California and here in Arizona are a clear example of what happens as the Earth warms, particularly as the West warms, and the warming caused by humans is making fire season longer and longer with each decade," said University of Arizona geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck. "It's certainly an example of what we'll see more of in the future.""

Any time someone says "look how bad winter was" they are (rightfully) chided for treating a variation in weather as being "climate".

Well who does not remember years and years of past California wildfires. Guess what, drought happens. You can't declare one "climate change" just because it's scary.

And you can't even see that climate change makes drought more likely without way more data than we have. A warmer climate could mean some areas are dryer, others wetter. But actually overall it would mean more moisture in the system, not less...

I can see that for years climatologists have been saying that drought-stricken areas will become even drier [washingtonpost.com] with more warming. And according to the article there has been a three-decade pattern of fires getting worse in the West: "Since 1984, the area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a year, according to an April study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

One winter is not a long-term pattern. Something that gets worse over the course of decades, in contrast, is a long-term pattern.

In terms of climate, anything shorter than a decade is short-term. And no one is calling a singular event climate. Climate is the average weather over a period of decades. The increasing wildfires over the past several decades in the Southwest are a result of increasing temperatures and drought conditions over decades. That's climate change.

Are you sure the more frequent larger fires aren't actually the result of past fire prevention? I know some fire fighters and park rangers who told me that policy changes in the 90s prevented them from letting small fires go naturally (these fires weren't even important enough to make the national news). Instead the policy was modified to "Put all observed fires out ASAP." In addition they were banned from removing brush that would normally have been consumed by these smaller fires. I remember them saying that if not changed the policies would lead to bigger fires in the future. A sorta pay for it later mess. So my question is, if it is fair to say many "Scientist" claim fire increases are because of "climate change", is it not fair to say there are "Philosophers" who reason fire increases are because of "bureaucratic BS"?

What an inane question. All global warming does is on average cause hotter drier conditions in many areas like the American west and Siberia. Those conditions make it easier for a wildfire to get started and once it gets started make it more difficult to stop. Whether a fire actually gets started or not is still a matter of chance but with global warming potential fires that might have fizzled out in the past have a better chance of becoming a noticeable fire.

There's no cherry picking of one particular week or month. From TFA: "Since 1984, the area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a year, according to an April study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a yea

So here is the problem with libtards, they create a problem and then use selective results that are actually the result of their own BS as proof, more of what they want, needs to be done.

This is true with the wild fires and the selection of data to help show how bad Global Warming is getting. The government back in the 90s decided their brilliant fire policies could be even more brilliant. Instead of letting small fires burn (some seeds and bugs only grow/hatch after a fire), but no no no, people in universities and in Washington, these intellectuals, were smarter than nature or those western ranching folks with no college degree. See these collectivists were so smart they said "New policy let's put every fire out ASAP". "Oh, and no you cannot remove brush and grass and 'fuel' that would normally have been periodically consumed and used up and removed". Instead the new "intellectuals" said "protect nature"... by acting in an unnatural way. So all these little fires were put out and things looked so good (... in the short-term), that I am sure they patted themselves on the back and were like "Boy are we awesome, we are so much smarter than that farmer who said this was a dangerous idea".

So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later.... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.

So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later.... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.

Leaving aside your rabid ad hominem remarks about collectivism, your claim that increased fires are due to increased fire load has in fact been studied [globalchange.gov] and discounted [washington.edu] . In other words, those of us in the "reality-based community" (i.e. "libtards") are a lot more self-critical than you. Which is why we do science and you do politics.

And where do you get your information? A wildfire may not be burning above-ground, but the fire can continue underneath the topsoil. Forest fires are not considered "out" until they have been thoroughly soaked with water over a period of months. In the Sierras, that's after the first big snowstorm of the season. Snow captures the heat and melts, and the resulting water will go into the root tunnels and snuff what's left of the fire. And the loss of coverage *can* affect climate, but only in a local are

Yeah, but California has ALWAYS been drier than it was for the last century. 500 year droughts were not uncommon. Using a drought in the fucking Sahara as evidence for your theory shows that your methodology is very, very flawed, and should bring closer scrutiny. But it doesn't, because the field is 100% politicized and no-one is REALLY interested in science.

So you don't think Forest Service land management (or the lack thereof) has anything to do with it? Because the timeframe for increasingly bad fires matches up really nicely with changes in approach to doing so...

... according to the article there has been a three-decade pattern of fires getting worse in the West:

And the reason for that is well known, and has nothing to do with global warming.

It is caused by environmentalist interference in land management. The major factors are;
- Fuel load: Logging is stopped, or delayed for decades by lawsuits, even of diseased and fallen trees, which are left to rot. Brush clearing, deemed "unnatural", is also stopped. LOTS of little trees and weeds grow up between th

There is a larger picture than you are seeing. Consider the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) and this interesting bit from Colorado State University:

Extreme cold temperatures also can reduce MPB populations. For winter mortality to be a significant factor, a severe freeze is necessary while the insect is in its most vulnerable stage; i.e., in the fall before the larvae have metabolized glycerols, or in late spring when the insect is molting into the pupal stage. For freezing temperatures to affect a large number of larvae during the middle of winter, temperatures of at least 30 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit) must be sustained for at least five days.

Yes, these trees are susceptible to MPB because of the reason you state (over crowding, more stressed, etc). I don't disagree with that. But you cannot overlook the fact that winters simply haven't been killing these bugs the way that has been done in the past. Less frequent cold snaps means more beetles able to kill more trees that are already stressed which leads t

Love how your claims are "truth" by simple declaration, and others' are of course merely claims, even when they're agreeing with a peer-reviewed study.

Why don't you try and rebut the actual study, if you're so sure it's wrong? Or at least attempt toprovide a modicum of evidence to make your own claims look a little less like yet another soapbox rant.

And a study (one of many [globalchange.gov]) showing that climate is the dominant factor in the size of the wildfires we've been seeing:

* Littell et al 2009 [washington.edu] Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces:

We demonstrate that wildfire area burned (WFAB) in the American West was controlled by climate during the 20th century (1916-2003)....For 1977-2003, a few climate variables explain 33-87% (mean = 64%) of WFAB, indicating strong linkages between climate and area burned.

By contrast, Mr Watts' "facts" are also nothing more than unsubstantiated declarations and assumptions, just like yours. A few random examples from your link:

* "This [CO2] percentage increase means nothing. Human CO2 emissions didn’t begin to rise significantly until after 1945": Keyword is 'significantly' - he claims the rise is not significant, but provides no justifications for this assumption, other than that the atmospheric percentage is "about as close to nothing as you can get" (it's a really small-looking number). No citations given.

* "...there is no way that this miniscule amount [of atmospheric CO2] can have any significant effect on climate." Another unsubstantiated declaration in his "facts" list. No citations given for this claim.

* "CO2 also lags short-term warming [historical graph] showing that warming causes rise in CO2, not the other way around if CO2 was the cause." - Incorrectly assumes that CO2 must either be a cause or an effect, but could never be both. No citations given for this "fact", either.

* "...global climate marches in lock step with sun spots, length of the sun spot cycle, and intensity of the solar magnetic field... total solar insolation (TSI) correlates very well with climate". Once more, he just claims this as a fact, with (wait for it) no citations given.

* "HadCRUT4 temperature curve showing that 56% of the warming since 1895 occurred prior to 1945"... according to his arbitrarily-drawn red lines. The HadCRUT4 temperature graph may well be accurate, but (of course) he provides no citation for any peer-reviewed source for his claimed "56% of warming" cut-off point (looks to me like the red line that claims to show this is just drawn to the peak of the biggest short-term fluctuation he can find, without regard to averages or trends or anything).

I could easily go on, but I have work to do. If Watts' unbacked assertions are what you consider "facts", then it's no wonder you usually don't bother to link to them.

Here are several papers from just one scientist [wwu.edu] that counter the concept of human-induced climate change. And they were published as well. Now how accurate is that "0% of scholarly papers" claim? Especially in light of the fact that Dr. Easterbrook's climate model (which does NOT base itself on CO2) accurately matches the past - AND predicted the current 17 year pause in warming, something none of the IPCC CO2-based models accomplished.

I suggest you increase your range of research. Specifically, find the study for the Tahoe Basin showing how the suppression of forest fires has increased the fuel load in the forests of the basin for the past 30 years. More fuel means hotter fires. Also, add "fire ecology" to your search parameters. In this one respect, man *has* affected the ecology, by suppressing limited fires that eat up the excess fuel that can lead to large crown fires and "firenados."

Note they just said fires are getting worse, not that droughts are... and even the fire things is mostly true of California, not the west in general.

Tell that to Colorado [wikipedia.org] which had the two worst fire seasons in its history in 2012 & 2013.

According to CSU, wildfires in Colorado destroyed less than 100,000 acres per decade over the 1960s and the 1970s. For the 1980s and 1990s, the total was over 200,000 acres per decade. For the 2000s, the total was approximately 1,000,000 acres.

Actually wildfires are endemic everywhere west of the Rockies and for a ways east as well. California has just been getting the publicity lately but we've already had a few small fires in Oregon this year.

That said, wildfires are a very complicated topic and man is responsible for their increased size and devastation. However the man made activity that has a huge impact here is fire fighting. This has been known for many decades. The problem is that the natural cycle of fires leads to smaller fires. These smaller fires prevent fuel from accumulating and they provide a patchwork of natural firebreaks to a degree. Our habit of stomping out every single fire as it starts just leads to more and more fuel accumulating over larger and larger areas. The result is the larger and more devastating fires.

Preventing the natural burn cycle sets us up for larger fires. We need to be more strategic about our fire fighting in rural and wilderness settings.

Preventing the natural burn cycle sets us up for larger fires. We need to be more strategic about our fire fighting in rural and wilderness settings.

Great idea, back in the 80's when I used to visit Socal, they'd burn out the hills every summer. Worked like a charm to keep the fires down, then the environmentalists, idiots with the mansions in the hills, and nimby's started throwing a hissy fits on every pro-active burn program out there. Everything from "it's making the air bad," to "it's not natures way."

But actually overall it would mean more moisture in the system, not less...

Exactly, and you know what, water vapor in the atmosphere has been steadily rising since ~1980. However just because there is an increase of water vapor on a global scale does not mean droughts will not become more common on a regional scale. More rain in the tropics actually implies the deserts to on either side of the tropics will widen and become drier. Yes it's "counter intuitive", but not nearly as hard to wrap your head around as (say) quantum mechanics. Google "Hadley cells" for a more technical expl

Any time someone says "look how bad winter was" they are (rightfully) chided for treating a variation in weather as being "climate".

But that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the kind of weather S. California has had in the last few months will be more common in the future, which *is* a statement about climate. He's saying that the acreage burned by wildfire has increased steadily over the last thirty years, which is also a statement about climate (albeit indirect).

He did not say "the fires this year prove that climate is warming", or any of discouragingly braindead kinds of things you hear coming out of the denialist echo chamb

Clearing the underbrush can *reduce* the amount of CO2 to be produced. Pull and chip that brush, don't burn it. Use the chips as ground cover to better protect seeds and hold water, both which promote good tree growth. Chips can be used in playgrounds instead of sand or dirt, particular chips from softwood brush. When my father was in the forest service, they cleared out brush "by hand"; the only time they lit any fires was when they needed to set a backfile to halt or steer a moving path of flame.

Precisely the problem. The Greens have prevented the kind of land management you need in order to prevent brushfires spreading.

This is a bunch of ignorant cockery. The rich have prevented etc etc. They're the ones who buy the big spreads in the hills and then sue to prevent anyone from carrying out controller burns which might affect their views. And they're the ones who buy the laws which control the building codes which permit people to build flammable homes in the middle of a forest in the first place, which is just goddamned ignorant. We have many different kinds of homes which are not vulnerable to forest fire with adequate clearing including compressed straw bale (the straw is compressed, and covered with stucco) and earth bag, to name two of the cheapest with the least environmental impact. The greens would love to build homes like that, but they typically aren't permitted to by building codes.

They take a scientific claim that the frequency and intensity of a phenomenon will increase, decade, over decade, and try to argue against it based on what the weather did last month, or that one time last year. And they make it look like the scientists are talking specifically about the specific fire last month, when they just made a statistical claim about long term averages.

So don't exploit specific current events to promote your "scientific claims". Then, when you're not saying fires "like the ones scorching Southern California" this week are caused by global warming, you won't have to deal with the fact that these particular fires were not caused by global warming. If you want to be understood as a statistician, don't talk like a used car salesman.

In all fairness, yes, there are clearly fossil fuels shills at work on/., but the post you replied to does not seem to be one of them. There are many places in the world where certain forestry-related policies are under heavy controversy because they are now generally accepted to increase the incidence and severity of wildfires. While in my opinion, there is enough independent evidence to cautiously suggest that global warming (which itself is not in dispute in scientific circles) is more likely to make bu

While in my opinion, there is enough independent evidence to cautiously suggest that global warming (which itself is not in dispute in scientific circles) is more likely to make bush fires worse than better

Why? Climate Change does not automatically make every area more prone to the kinds of disasters that frequently occur there. Why wouldn't it lessen the chance for severe wild fires? This is the kind of thinking that fuels "deniers". It's always, smaller polar caps, retreating glaciers, intensified tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, rising sea levels. Why not more rain in the desert or semi-arid farmland? Or the shifting of severe weather events to another area? More snow for the ski areas. Less rain

If you ask me, there are various degrees of likelihood:
- smaller polar caps and rising sea levels: damn sure - we're seeing it now already and temperature at the poles correlates relatively well with global averages. The impact of this will be pretty terrible and this is already enough motivation to do something about global warming.
- retreating glaciers: almost certain for an overwhelming majority of glaciers in the world - we're seeing it now already, often to a spectacular extent. What I don't understa

Wow first four comments are global warming deniers and all post within six minutes. Earn that pay, boys!

Sorry, AC. But the deniers of science here are those who deny the effect of fire suppression policies and land management policies. Sometimes it really is the politics.

The huge factors here are (1) fire suppression policies not allowing natural burn cycles to occur, fuel unnaturally accumulates and it does so over larger areas and (2) land management where people are allowed to build in fire prone areas but not allowed to clear brush to a "safe" distance. The result is larger fires and fires that are a high risk to homes.

CO2 is only one of many man made problems and it is not always the leading contributor.

First of all, it's "climate change" now and not "global warming"... some spots are having much cooler temperatures instead.

Secondly, droughts happen. The history of California is the history of water politics mainly because most of SoCal is a semi-arid desert. San Diego in particular has a giant desert separating us from the rest of the country -- even LA.

Thirdly, unless you've just moved to San Diego, you're quite aware of the 2003 and 2007 fires. These were (also) not the result of global warming.

Climate change is consequence of global warming. And that "warming" is not one that you would easily notice (a few tenths of degrees in the average global temperature each year), but still have effects everywhere, including (and changing) the climate. And if you want, that warming is caused in a good degree by human activity, incrementing the percent of some greenhouse gases (like CO2) in the atmosphere. And it have more consequences than just incrementing temperature, like ocean acidification.

How you make people aware of slow, hard to notice small changes in global trends? Pointing out some of the most visible consequences as they are being discovered/correlated etc. If i tell you that CO2 in atmosphere increased a 100% and you see the air around you normal, you won't worry about it. If i tell you that the average global temperature increased 1-2 C, you see local weather events, see that nothing really big changed (or worse, that in some regions were colder than in other years) and still won't care/do anything about it. So the effort is showing you that there are visible things that hits you that are consequences of those otherwise hard to see (in a short time span, in a narrow geographical sense) trends.

Are there any positive impacts from global warming/climate change/climate disruption/what have you? Ever single consequence that I ever see people talking about is negative--drought, fire, sea level rise, spread of disease, extinction, etc.

The problem of changes is when you depend on things that requires stability, like, i.e. agriculture. Farming requires that for a lot of time (i.e. a whole year) you won't have floods, drizzles, hailstorms, droughts and so on. And if well we can cope with losing isolated crops, if that becomes widespread a lot of people will die, and in a not pleasant way exactly.

But yes, could be upsides from that changes. Eventually we will reach a new balance. Life will prevail in a way or another. And one of the most d

"How you make people aware of slow, hard to notice small changes in global trends?"

Ans: pay attention to Miami. The city administration is making plans for sea level rise. It isn't because they expect it, it is because it is already happening and costing them money. There are similar problems in Norfolk, but there the county Republicans have passed resolutions saying it isn't happening, so they don't have to do anything. The Navy, however, with a big base there, is making plans. Hmmm...the Navy? Those clear-eyed sailors of the ocean blue...whose job it is to understand the seas...who spend a lot of money on oceanography and just about everything that effects their operation...them? Yup. It seems they have no problems with assessing climate change and are even attempting to do their part and develop propulsion systems that do not add carbon to the atmosphere. And who would oppose that? Why those scientists who are masquerading as Republicans in Congress. It seems they are upset at the Navy for not declaring carbon is not a problem and they should sit on their arses while the basis of their operation is changing.

Florida's problem IS man made, but it isn't rising sea levels, it is that they built canals to drain the water and now they have compounded the natural subsidence of the land that has been ongoing for tens of thousands of years, with the man made subsidence due to water extraction. Most of the East coast is sinking at a rate that exceeds the predicted rise due to melting ice and warming water. Norfolk is near the site of a meteor impact 35 million years ago that is responsible for its faster rate of subsi

Yes. The Northern part of the Canadian prairie provinces might make a shitload of money selling wheat and corn to the USA, whose own production will drop considerably. However, it's still illegal in Canada to sell you clean fresh water in large amounts, so start building those desalination plants now.

It is not focusing on how wildfires start (that may had been by people or not, by accident or intentionally) but how bigger are the consequences now. Changing rain patterns means that big areas with plenty of trees could get little water for months, it will turn to be very vulnerable to small fires (even unintentional ones, like caused by throwing a smoke or a broken bottle), and that won't be rain to give it a rest. Over the last months there had been very extensive wildfires in Australia, Spain, Californi

Fire ignition is not a consequence. Fire sustenance IS a consequence. Warmer temps, drier climate = fires that burn more land faster before they are brought under control. Which is what the article says.

Yes, and I remember some really strong "Santa Ana" conditions (like the one in which these recent human-set fires occurred) in the late seventies when we were said to be slipping into a new Ice Age. Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption is terribly convenient. You can blame or explain everything within its context.

Not true. We have "Santa Anas" every Christmas in San Diego. They can happen any time of the year. I've been here more than a while and seen years range from ~5" of rain to ~29". Weather and climate both vary. The problem is that some folks are abusing temperature data and statistical models to blame a specific cause, and, make money in the bargain.

Fourthly, there's good reason to believe that at least some of the ones this week were started by (d-bag) arsonists.

The claim is that climate change is making the fires worse. That's very different than the question of how any one fire started.

Your argument is like pointing to a smoker killed in a car crash and saying "see, cigarettes don't cause cancer."

Maybe someone did start some of the fires. That's happened in the past as well. The real question is, are the fires worse now? From the article: in the 80's an average of 2.9 million acres burned each year, from 2010 to 2013 it was 6.4 million acres per year. That sounds quite a bit worse. Maybe the last few years were just unlucky years, or maybe the fires really are getting worse.

Maybe it's statements like yours from "non-scientists" arguing issues other than the ones raised that are confusing things.

First of all, it's "climate change" now and not "global warming"... some spots are having much cooler temperatures instead.

It's still global warming, in spite of republican efforts to relabel it climate change. Stop prevaricating.

Secondly, droughts happen.

Red herring. That's totally orthogonal to this point. Stop prevaricating. Also, the current drought is unusual even in Northern California, where the water comes from. You didn't even bother to mention that, most likely because it's inconvenient to your point. Stop prevaricating.

unless you've just moved to San Diego, you're quite aware of the 2003 and 2007 fires. These were (also) not the result of global warming.

This is about global warming making wildfires more likely and worse, not about global warming making wildfires possible. Stop

Thirdly, unless you've just moved to San Diego, you're quite aware of the 2003 and 2007 fires. These were (also) not the result of global warming.

I remember both of those cases well: classes are cancelled for a week, because they occurred during Fall semester in September/October. This one is in May. Having a longer fire season is exactly what the OP is stating.

Honestly, I still expect overall the world's climate will be getting wetter with global warming. There might be some regions that will get drier, but warmer oceans mean more evaporation. Warmer temperatures mean the air can hold more moisture resulting in higher humidity. Eventually that higher humidity has to result in more rainfall somewhere. But even if higher humidity doesn't result in rain, higher humidity does result in less aggressive fire behavior.
I am not a climate scientist. I have a lot of people scoff at me when I say this, but they never explain how I am wrong. I can read the projections but the projections never seem to include the increased levels of ocean evaporation that I expect.

Okay, so I accept that the expansive worsening of fire season may be at least in part caused by global warming, climate change, or whatever we are calling it this week. But I squarely point my finger at the logging industry and decades of mismanaging re-forestation as a substantial contributor that is just now catching up with us.

Let's make a deal, global warming (or climate change, or whatever the buzzword of the week) deniers: You can keep your SUVs, your ACs turned to 60 degrees and all your other toys. And once the waters rise you drown like good old idiots and don't try to climb up on my mountains.

Let's make a deal, global warming (or climate change, or whatever the buzzword of the week) deniers: You can keep your SUVs, your ACs turned to 60 degrees and all your other toys. And once the waters rise you drown like good old idiots and don't try to climb up on my mountains.

I don't own an SUV and I have yet to turn my AC on this year and I live 650 miles away from the nearest ocean and I still think this article is utter bullshit. Failed forest management policies cause wildfires. End of story. Any signal from the climate is completely overwhelmed by the policies of clowns who think the "natural" way is by definition better.

Who trusted God was love indeedAnd love Creation's final lawTho' Nature, red in tooth and clawWith ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Don't even look at the carbon footprint of people who live in the mountains or in rural areas. Or spend time on recreation there. It's huge.

If you have any respect for the environment, you'll move into a small apartment in a high rise in a city. You'll use mass transit and resources on your own city block. You'll never travel outside the city limits. Forget about mountain climbing, hiking, skiing, etc.

As someone that has been in regions where these wildfires have happened, I can tell you it is actually bad forest management.

Here's the thing. In nature, forests burn on occasion. Always have. Its part of the natural process. Some species either actively encourage the fires or rely upon the fires as part of their life cycle.

Okay, now that it is established that if left alone the forests will occasionally burn... what happens if you don't cut trees down and cut brush back on occasion and instead just leave the whole thing to take care of itself.

It burns.

I live in California and that has been the cause of most of our wild fires. We used to have forest management to the extent that we would subcontract logging companies to go through the forests and thin them out a bit so there was room for new growth and the whole forest didn't go up like a roman candle every 10-30 years (depends on the plant species and local climate).

Well, that was stopped and the logging companies aren't allowed to operate in our forests anymore because they're not environmentally friendly.

Fine... you're now putting nature in charge. And nature is going to burn that fucker down on its own schedule.

Global warming might have something to do with this sort of thing but it is NOT what is causing the vast majority of forest fires in the US. They are caused by moronic forest management that is itself guided by crystal rubbing mystics that will say out of one side of their mouth that the environment is harmed by direct human management and then say out of the other side that nature's natural processes are all our fault.

These people are idiots.

And just to preempt the first fucktard that responds to this post saying I have his misguided asshattery wrong... I don't. I live here. I've seen this happen over years. I saw was we were doing before. I saw what you did, I watched the forest prime itself like a coiling spring, I saw the fires, I watched the clean up, and I've been listening to you same slack-jawed halfwits ever since point fingers at anyone besides yourselves.

Global warming might have something to do with this sort of thing but it is NOT what is causing the vast majority of forest fires in the US.

That's not what the article said. I know this is slashdot, but you could try reading the article. If you don't understand it the first time, odds are the problem is you, and you should try a few more times.

They are caused by moronic forest management that is itself guided by crystal rubbing mystics

Ahh, this is all a rant against woo. I was wondering what you were so angry about. Did you get turned down for sex by a hippie today?

Do the Earth a favor and listen more and talk less.

Take your own advice, and read the fine article instead of flapping your yap. What the article said, and it's true, is that global warming makes fires more likely and it exa

Meanwhile in Australia people are considering about seven triggers for the fires - one of which is fuel load and another how dry the place is (thus climate). All seven and you get huge fires. Nobody paid attention to those arguing against reducing fuel load from way back when you poor suckers had Reagan as a governor. Americans had the same information and gathered a lot of it. Don't blame the messengers just becuase you've got a bunch of losers worried more about their property values than lives.

Riiiight. So this has absolutely nothing at all to do with progressively worse nonmanagement of national forests over the past 30 years, opting instead to wait for a really big fire to clear burn areas?

In case it wasn't clear, wildfires are predominantly caused by accumulation of a sufficiently large amount of sufficiently dry combustible material. Once it's there, it will inevitably catch fire one day or another, arson or not. And climate change has the potential to modulate that "sufficiently dry" attribute. It is equally true that humanity is actively modulating the "sufficiently large amount" attribute (for example by suppressing small undergrowth fires and by not cutting the undergrowth that would otherwise be removed by these fires), which doesn't make things any better. But arson has relatively little to do with it.

It's not environmentalists who don't want the burns. Environmentalists (their party affiliation doesn't matter) know that it's beneficial to have controlled burnings. The people who do complain are the land owners, who have acres of prime real estate perched on expensive hills. At least get your facts straight. You railing on environmentalists is hilarious in itself, but highlights a disconcerting pattern - that there are more people like you out there who will gladly and easily substitute their idea of

What it typically means you devote your life to pursuing the truth of some small aspect of the universe and study, test and discuss the various theories surrounding this area.This means that you can be considered an expert on the subject.

The "others" are a bunch of people who pull opinions out of their arse at best or purposely malign the truth for their own ends at worst.

For you to say such things betrays a level of ignorance that is truly awesome to behold - assuming you are not just trolling for the sake of it which just makes you a common garden variety douche bag. Regardless of your own insignificant thoughts and motivations the thought process you describe appears to be a relatively common one.

But fear not, the reasons for your ignorance and/or troll-like behaviour is something studied, tested and discussed in the field of psychology by scientists!

Translation: "I am scientifically illiterate - I get my scientific facts from newspapers and TV shows. I don't bother to research the relevant papers, and assume that things are either true or false based on who's telling me, rather than the content of their arguments. I have given up thinking, because it's scary, difficult, and challenges my perceptions of reality which keep me happy."

On the other hand, putting human beings (specifically, the shareholders of your company) ahead of entire eco-systems makes you a suicidal+ecocidal idiot and a nihilistic life-hater; kind of a super-villain.

I agree with your overall sentiment. In many cases it is beyond a joke and misguided attempts to help the environment often hurt it, as is the case with banning the disturbance of brush around homes and communities.

While you are correct that the banning of DDT was at the time unfounded scientifically--the egg shells seemed to be thinning that year generally and may not have had anything to do with DDT, but alas it was never really researched. However, had DDT continued to be used on the scale that it was, modern research has showed that mosquitoes would have adapted and become resistant in just a couple of years, ending the use of DDT anyway. Put in another way, banning DDT did *not* directly lead to the deaths of millions of people. Perhaps banning DDT was even a benefit, because now it is used by some countries, on a much smaller scale, to a good effect in controlling malaria.

When you throw out bullshit like that DDT was banned for treating malaria mosquitoes why should we listen to you and the fact that by spreading the bullshit that DDT was banned for malaria really makes you wonder about the education of the moderators.Look it up, DDT was not banned for malaria, it just became less useful as the mosquitoes were evolving to like DDT.